Talk:outside the box

RFD discussion: December 2014–January 2015

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

outside the box

This term attests, in an idiomatical mannner to mean what is "beyond the bounds of convention", i.e. what is thought of conventionally yet it is at least thought of by a person running across it for the first time. Once they share their thought others are bound to question it and want to know what it means and if someone says it at a convention it may be thought of by a great deal of people. Some of them may be publishers who will then bind this thought into a cliche. If an editor shares this "outside the box" on the internet it may rapidly... become a meme? At this point I think it fair to conclude that it defines something "restricted by convention", or inside the box e.g. saying it's complete rubbish yet isn't this increasingly becoming meaningless to everyone? --Riverstogo (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what your point is, but assuming you're saying that outside the box is SOP, it seems to me that it passes the "jiffy test" of idiomaticity: "think outside the box" is the original term, and there's no way to tell from the elements of that phrase what the phrase means. Since then, people have reverse-engineered terms from it such as "think inside the box" and "outside-the box thinking" that use "the box" as a metaphor- but "the box" wasn't independent within the original term. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

My point derives from a number of points. Like a story. You have to connect the dots... one at a time, like you read words one at a time, or understand paragraphs one at a time. You keep going and you gradually build up a picture. I you lift your pen so to speak, you may be thinking outside the box and the picture may take on more di-mentions. But if you insist on arbitrary rules, like the jiffy test, or the complete rubbish test which I am now performing, the task becomes harder as nearly everyone can agree when you are thinking outside the box but not whether you should be. --Riverstogo (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Even if I agreed with you... what possible relevance to the deletion of the Wiktionary entry outside the box? What you or I consider to be conventional is irrelevant. As long as people use it (they do) and it's idiomatic (it is). Would you want to delete conventional for the same reasons? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of points I would like to make on this, but I feel they can wait. What I want to note right now is that someone has edited the section title. Please do not edit section titles as this breaks links on talk pages and in other discussion fora. --Riverstogo (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

WT:DELETE currently lists as the basis for "the deletion of [a] Wiktionary entry"; 1. Complete Rubbish: The contents don’t make sense [...]

To make sense of something we need to agree on something. That is why convention is important. Otherwise like you say even conventinal words would be currently under discussion.

2. Title misspelled: Move the article to the correct title [...]

Spelling is an important convention, moving "the box" of a meaning around is like.. moving a box around.... you don't know what is in the box anymore or where the box is. You have lost context.

3. Contents have been moved to another project: Depending on the reason for the move, an article for the term may still be warranted [...]

What is inside the box may have changed the meaning of what it means to be outside the box. I'm not saying there's a bomb inside the box, I just want to know if I should keep standing next to the box? or metaphorically call for volunteers to go inside the box before we delete safely distant from the box?

4. Protologisms (i.e. words that have been made up by the poster) have their place in Appendix:List of protologisms [...]

I just discovered these @busive terms [...] --Riverstogo (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: The "box" is metaphorical, so "outside" and "inside" it are metaphorical. I'm also confused. Yesterday, it seemed as though you wanted inside the box created. Now you want them deleted. Purplebackpack89 02:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you use metaphor to excuse any meaning or lack thereof, even a complete rubbish one? Yesterday I did want the inside of the box created, but earlier today I discovered an inconvenient truth... it is complete rubbish. Unfortunately, no one can be told what "the box" is [...]? --Riverstogo (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Saying that nobody can define what "the box is" is exactly why inside the box and outside the box should exist. Purplebackpack89 04:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It just doesn't matter. We don't all have to agree on the interpretation of a term for a term semantically related to that term to not be deleted. By this logic, we should delete convention, conventions and conventionally also? Because no all speakers agree on the interpretation of the meaning? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Why are you casting such doubt conventionally? The current discussion is about a metaphorical box that supposedly has some meaning (MBTSHSM). You say we don't have to agree on that meaning, because we can see it being used with terms semantically related to being inside or outside of this MBTSHSM. It is not that we don't agree that the use of MBTSHSMs is widespread, or that its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components, it's that the meaning is becoming meaningless, which I understand to be a form of rubbish and grounds for deletion, not to mention the kind of thing you don't want circulating at a convention you're attending. If you want to say that it may still retain some meaning while not all speakers have fully understood this meaning, I would agree with you. Still I would say metaphorically I hear an odd ticking sound from where I'm standing. --Riverstogo (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Any chance you could answer the question? Why not delete the word conventional, it fits your deletion rationale significantly better than outside the box does. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: Precisely what Purplebackpack89 said. In addition, the box is used SO metaphorically today, that practically anyone could be presumed to understand what is meant when it is used in such a fashion. Tharthan (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That is precisely what I am saying. Since everyone knows what the box means it now means practically the opposite, additionally it is in fashion SO many people presume to understand it. This leads to an ambiguity over what they really mean or understand, which can lead to spontaneous self-contradiction. Don't say I didn't warn you. --Riverstogo (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep as no deletion rationale is given by Riverstogo, and I cannot think of any deletion rationale myself. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep per Chuck Entz and Renard. Equinox ◑ 21:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Renard Migrant @Equinox It's complete rubbish, it's self-contradictory, it's meaningless! gish. --Riverstogo (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

What I think you're arguing is that "outside the box", instead of defying convention, is now itself a convention. The terminology may have been overused to absurdity/meaninglessness, but if there was a point in the history of its usage when it still held meaning (and that meaning happens to have been the definition provided), the entry can be kept on the basis of that. Purplebackpack89 01:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep Purplebackpack89's understanding of you argument may be correct, but I thought you were trying to make this argument.

An idea which is outside the box (unconventional) may become inside the box (conventional) through publication or dissemination and therefore the two idioms are synonymous.

If so, your argument fails to recognize the diachronicity of the idea, which is to say, that even if an unconventional idea may become conventional, those happen at separate times and thus are not the same. It would be like saying we should not call a caterpillar a caterpillar because it will later be called a butterfly. If, instead, you are merely railing against a cliché that has lost its meaning because of overuse, then we should probably remove phrases like expect the unexpected. If we have yet to summarize your argument yet, could you please clarify it very carefully? The term is by no means self-contradictory nor meaningless. Also, your use of the word rubbish is neither informative nor helpful to your argument. —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 02:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Definitely idiomatic. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

If someone comes up with some deletion rationale, I'd love to hear it. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

And god dammit, there's still five days left on this one. I've been tempted to close this one early, but it violates too many rule to do so. Purplebackpack89 22:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Well it's definitely going to be kept, so you can ignore it for five days. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting. I can't think of a single rule it would break. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep. Think positively in 2015. Happy New Year! Donnanz (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Kept, basically a snow close. bd2412 T 02:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)